Evaluation of a plant material-based air purifier for removing H<sub>2</sub>S, NH<sub>3</sub>and swine manure odour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plant material-based air purifier (PMAP) was evaluated for odour removal. Laboratory tests were performed using two identical chambers: one treated by PMAP, and one as the control. Swine manure, hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) were tested as odour sources. The test was also conducted in a swine barn. Air samples were taken from test chambers and two rooms in the pig barn and analysed for H2S, NH3 and odour concentrations. When treated with PMAP, the H2S concentration in the sealed chamber was subject to exponential decay, with the decay constant ranging from 0.59 to 0.70 l/h. The H2S concentration was reduced from 20 to 3 ppm in 3 h and to 0.2 ppm in 7h for H2S produced by chemical reaction, and from 0.4 to 0.02 ppm in 3 h for swine manure as the odour source. When an equal amount of ammonia solution was placed in the two test chambers, the NH3 concentration reached a peak value of 25 ppm in the chamber treated by PMAP, and 43 ppm in the control. The NH3 concentration in the treated chamber was reduced to 5 ppm in 3.5 h but stayed at 37 ppm in the control. The PMAP reduced the NH3 concentration from 38 to 10 ppm when swine manure was used as the odour source. The PMAP was capable of reducing swine odour in both laboratory and in-barn conditions. The reduction rate was at least 50%. The results from this research indicate the plant-based materials provide an alternative, environmentally friendly way for odour control. It is also shown that the mode of odour reduction by the PMAP was the removal of odour compounds, in contrast to odour masking, which occurs for most plant materials that have been used for odour control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".